Potpourri
==> I have a long but very wide-ranging conversation with John Bush on “Rise Up Radio.” I think it starts at the 2:00:00 mark or so. He is going to be one of the Roasters at the upcoming Porcfest extravaganza, and so he and I take some shots at each other at the end, etc.
==> Richard Ebeling is spooked by John Maynard Keynes.
==> I may have already blogged this, can’t remember. Anyway a nice NPR story on how Obama, shortly after winning the Nobel Peace Prize, began overseeing lists of people who would be killed by flying death robots. Yawn. I think we all were taught in 5th grade that this would happen in the White House.
==> When it comes to Scott Sumner, I give credit where credit is due.
==> I had grand plans to write up a big critique, but I’m just too busy. Here you can try to guess at how I was going to actually defend Bernanke from Scott Sumner. (Meaning, Bernanke’s statements are very comprehensible and Sumner is somehow claiming victory, as he often does. I imagine when Scott eats at a Chinese place and opens the fortune cookie, he always exclaims, “Just as I’ve been saying for 3 years on my blog!”)
Come on now, Bob. The problem isn’t the president murdering people without due process*. I learned from watching Fox News tonight that the problem is caused by these horrible leaks to the media that allowed us to find out about the president murdering people without due process.
http://tinyurl.com/6w7shd7
Congress is hard at work putting a stop to these leaks which, of course, damage our national security.
*Oh wait. I’m sorry. The fact that the president thought real real real hard in advance about killing these people amounts in itself to due process. Never mind.
On the good side, remote control drone bombers make warfare cheaper, easier, more efficient, and more palatable to the general population.
But then again, on the bad side, remote control drone bombers make warfare cheaper, easier, more efficient, and more palatable to the general population.
And I’d add to your first list (but not your second) – safer for our soldiers.
I’m not sure why “cheaper” and “more efficient” is on your second list. I agree with putting “easier” and “more palatable to the general population” there.
It was a joke. On the good side, war is cheaper and easier to wage; on the bad side, war is cheaper and easier to wage (the idea that a cheaper easier war is more likely to occur).
Well, it was meant to be clever. But I thought it was a pretty good point overall. I wouldn’t write it all off to a joke.
Which is to say I would have cracked a slightly different joke 🙂
Please feel free to use my material for your next stand up night.
But the serious point is exactly what Jonathan pointed out. Cheaper is on the bad side because the decision makers are not constrained by any moral concerns, leaving only financial constraints to discourage more wars.
No, it’s not that he thought real real hard. It’s the fact that he’s commander in chief and executing a military operation.
That’s not to say these things should never be looked into, of course. Militaries abuse power all the time. And we have blanket prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment that stand against torture regimes. Scrutiny is imperative.
It’s simply to say that the fact that the military doesn’t draw up warrants or hold trials for every person it kills is hardly a violation of due process.
You and I don’t disagree on the importance due process, Bob Roddis. There’s no way you consider it more important than I do – no way. That’s not the question at hand.
“Glenn Greenwald bothers me in a really deep, genuine way.”
Daniel Kuehn
http://factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.com/2012/04/glenn-greenwald-bothers-me-in-really.html
Yep. He does.
DK wrote:
You and I don’t disagree on the importance due process, Bob Roddis. There’s no way you consider it more important than I do – no way.
Why do you say that? Do you mean, because there *is* due process for the people on these lists, it’s just not the same kind of due process as you would get if you had been charged with shoplifting?
Or, do you mean that yes you care about due process and agree it’s lacking here, but you care more about saving innocent US lives from terrorists than Roddis apparently does? (And so his lack of concern for American civilians is why he comes down for due process in this case, whereas you don’t.)
I’m not making a joke, I want to know how you can make this claim when (to my eyes) Roddis is for due process in this case, and you’re not.
The first option – with one addendum. Obviously I don’t know everything that goes on in the Pentagon. So while it’s the first option that’s not a blanket approval of everything I don’t know about.
We do not issue warrants for victims of military actions. This is not a violation of due process. It may be a mistake, it may be unwise.
I imagine Bob Roddis cares about his fellow Americans and the Constitution every bit as much as I do. I have a very hard time believing he cares more about it. And we certainly, without a doubt have disagreements about it.
Oh – we’re also crossing a couple stories by now. The link Bob shared was about the Mahenna trial, which seems perfectly reasonable for the FBI to take care of through judicial proceedings. Your initial point had more to do with drone strikes… different circumstances obviously. And I’m not qualified for arbitrating the jurisdictions for alleged terrorists acting domestically, which is what the Mahenna thing is about. Get a lawyer to sort that out – I don’t know. But please for God’s sake don’t bother asking Glenn Greenwald.
“Get a lawyer to sort that out – I don’t know. But please for God’s sake don’t bother asking Glenn Greenwald.”
Um, Glenn Greenwald is a lawyer.
As if my general ignorance isn’t embarrassing enough, you have to go parading it down the street, don’t you??
A former Constitutional law and civil rights attorney, no less.
But no qualification would be sufficient to legitimize his critical views of the regime to a High Priest of the Royal Guard like our resident visitor here…
Qualifications are great, but I care a lot more about arguments, and that’s what I find lacking in Glenn.
Let’s keep in mind the fact that Obama, who is using these drones, has experience in constitutional and civil rights law too..
…but I guess that qualification isn’t sufficient for you…
it shouldn’t be sufficient, of course. Just don’t come bitching to me about Greenwald on the same count.
but I care a lot more about arguments, and that’s what I find lacking in Glenn.
Maybe you can read him then, because I read him, and his arguments are not lacking at all.
Maybe they lack neocon flair, which signals lack of argument?
That is the claim, although, due to Obama’s secrecy, we’ve yet to see his outstanding scholarly work.
I think you mispunctuated this description of Greenwald:
“A[n …]attorney, no less.”
Let me fix it for you:
“A[n…]attorney. No: less.”
Better now.
🙂
It’s just my opinion, but when DK writes something like “Glenn Greenwald bothers me in a really deep, genuine way” and since Glenn Greenwald is very very very high up on our list of marvelous, irreplaceable and heroic human beings, one can fairly easily fill in the rest of DK’s script in advance.
Also, as a Keynesian, DK constantly advocates the illicit use of force and fraud without due process by bureaucrats to solve problems that do not exist and where the government “solution” is the cause of the problem. Why would his analysis be any different in the area of foreign affairs?
Your track record on filling in my script is nothing short of abysmal, Bob. I suggest you stop trying.
Bob Murphy is much better at filling in my script (a sign of a high quality public intellectual!), and even he felt the need above to ask for clarification.
You should take a hint.
I guess you told me.
but will it take…?
Your track record on filling in my script is nothing short of abysmal, Bob.
Quick question: What exactly, did Roddis say in his last post that was not consistent with your convictions?
I mean, Keynesianism is in fact based on force and fraud, if you
A. Define force as ANY initiation of force against property acquired by production, trade, or original appropriation, including the force from “lawmakers”. In other words, 51% of a population who vote to confiscate wealth from the remaining 49%, through the power of the majority’s select group of “representatives”, may be acting democratically, but they’re still initiating force against the 49%; and
B. Define fraud as ANY intentional deception to harm private property owners for personal gain, including fraud from “lawmakers.” In other words, if the “representatives” of the 51% intentionally deceive the 49% regarding the wealth redistribution effects inherent in government spending and inflation, by promising they will benefit, is still fraud, even if it’s legal.
And I’m not qualified for arbitrating the jurisdictions for alleged terrorists acting domestically, which is what the Mahenna thing is about. Get a lawyer to sort that out – I don’t know. But please for God’s sake don’t bother asking Glenn Greenwald.
So, what, you’re qualified enough to know Glenn Greenwald, who was a lawyer by the way, doesn’t know what he’s talking about?
Greenwald is far the better man than you are, DK, no offense. He’s a better man than me too. He’s had the guts to expose unconstitutional murder, torture, spying, and whistleblower attacks from the powers that be, and you’re saying “For God’s sake don’t bother asking Glenn Greenwald”?
I think any liberal who is not afraid to stand up to powerful liberals in a real way, and not in a “you should do more!” way, should be commended, and, considering the quality of his reporting and his knowledge over legal matters, trusted.
Without Greenwald, I wouldn’t have known that Obama has cracked down on whistleblowers with more viciousness than even Bush did, or that his administration was lying when they said how many civilians they have killed, or that Obama has redefined civilians into terrorists by the sole reason that they were in the geographical area that was bombed, which of course reduces the number of civilian casualties reported in airstrikes (I kid you not).
And while they’re bombing civilians to keep the oil flowing, you believe they’re keeping you safe from terrorists. I didn’t think this could happen, but my respect for you has reached a new low. No offense.
I’m glad you are here.
“What exactly, did Roddis say in his last post that was not consistent with your convictions?”
I’ll bite.
Two Roddis-on-DK comments
“DK is clearly quite supportive of … due process by the monetary bureaucrats”
“DK constantly advocates the illicit use of force and fraud without due process by bureaucrats ”
I suggest one of these does not.
Which one?
They both seem accurate to me.
As Greenwald has shown, the murdered are automatically defined as “military targets” and not deserving of due process:
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/militants_media_propaganda/singleton/
And the arrested and prosecuted are “automatically” defined as not being military targets!
Clearly activist lefty prosecutors are trying to dismantle the military!!!
His objection here is over the so-called military targets. I am not sure what those already arrested and prosecuted have to do with that.
A brief search of your blog on “Greenwald” tells me all I need to know. I should have listened to Roddis!
FYI, DK is clearly quite supportive of both the constitutional definition of money and due process by the monetary bureaucrats.
If we’re going to use words like “theft” to describe A PERFECTLY VALID MONETARY SYSTEM
http://tinyurl.com/6ugoqo8
This seems a pretty weak response. The issue is legal status and GG’s alleged proof is about ” media discourse”, ie what sloppy reporters say.
As an aside, I have seen too many bloggers prove Greenwald dishonest too often for me to consider him reliable.
OK, fine, although the accusation isn’t just leveled at the media.
I will have to check out these dishonesty points. I’ve only found him to be very unclear thinker but have not followed him closely enough to know of outright falsehoods. I’ll check that out, but if there are any notable cases that stand out for you let me know.
I emant that Dan’s quote, where he says GG has ‘proved’ something is really only where GG is referring to ‘media discourse’. Ie he has presented no evidence here hat ‘automatically defined’ means more than ‘called by some reporters’. Which is not about due process or its lack.
The blogs I can recall in re Greenwald are Instapundit and someone at Volokh (It’s been a while but I think so).
Ken, I had to reply below due to the length of the quotes and the width of the columns here.
“And we have blanket prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment that stand against torture regimes.”
You are correct that US law and numerous international conventions it is a part of prohibits torture.
However, since there is no due process or the rule of law, those prohibitions are meaningless. They are meaningless not merely because they are ignored, but also because those who violate them are always, always, granted full scale immunity.
In fact, the failing to investigate torture is a crime, in and of itself. Of course, that is also irrelevant.
So for instance. When top level Bush-era officials like Colonel Lawrence Wilkson, chief of staff to Colin Powell, signs a sworn affidavit affirming, “many of the detainees [at Guantanamo] were innocent and there existed little to no credible intelligence that suggested otherwise, and therefore should be immediately released.”
Hundreds of these innocent people were kept imprisoned in a facility where “torture was conducted – such as water-boarding, stripping prisoners naked and placing them in a diaper, forcing them to sleep naked on a concrete floor that water is continually poured on to induce hypothermia, fed the minimum caloric intake to avoid death, routinely thrown into walls, placed into coffin-like boxes.”
A facility where “there can be no doubt that dozens of inmates were tortured to death.”
These hundreds of innocent people – that the administration knew were innocent, “were kept imprisoned anyway, as the fear was if they were released and exposed what was going on, it would hurt the momentum and charge for a war on Iraq, and war on terror, more broadly,”
Upon release of this administration, despite campaigning on a platform to investigate the war crimes of the Bush administration, despite the #1 most important issue as measured by his own supporters on his Change.org website, President Obama broke another “prohibition” when he failed to investigate these acts of torture and his administration continued the long American tradition of elite lawlessness, by granting full-scale immunity to all.
So while Glenn Greenwald disturbs you in a deep way, I must say I find your claim that there is due process for the people on these lists, to be quite disturbing in a much more legitimate way.
By the way, those innocent people are all still locked away:
http://rt.com/usa/news/gitmo-release-president-obama-310/
I think you’re a little confused about my position.
The Wilkerson (not Wilkson) affidavit was for the Hamad case, right? I said many times on here and on my blog (in conversations you’ve been a part of, if I recall) which side of the Hamad case I fall on.
It’s precisely because of the Obama administration’s compliance with this and other Bush-era rulings that I tentatively approve of what’s going on with the administration. I’m under no illusion that everything is going perfectly, but that’s what we have the judicial system for.
Read your article more carefully – it’s not clear why some of them haven’t been released and the author admits that one reason is that upon further investigation the clearance to release was withdrawn. I’m not sure you or I can say whether they are “innocent” or not.
One thing I certainly don’t need lecturing on is that innocent people end up in prisons, military or otherwise. I don’t think that’s an argument against these prisons (military or otherwise). I do think that’s an argument for releasing innocent people. Yet you act as if I hold the exact opposite view. Why?
“It’s precisely because of the Obama administration’s compliance with this and other Bush-era rulings that I tentatively approve of what’s going on with the administration”
Speaks for itself.
RF, you seem to suggest that the rulings are invalid and should be ignored simply because they are “Bush era”. Have I understood you correctly?
Should we ignore “Nixon era” rulings of the Burger court, like Roe v Wade?
I think he’s saying there’s something insufficient about me saying “I like the fact that Obama seems to listen to the courts”. He doesn’t think Obama has done nearly enough.
The problem is he seems to ignore the fact that while Obama’s actions seem quite laudable, I’m certainly not endorsing all the ways they’ve implemented the court’s decisions. He seems to think I think the implementation is beyond reproach. I can’t really say that.
Obama does agree he is not above the law. That’s very good, in my view. Lawyers, judges, and the public should continue to fight over the details.
“It’s simply to say that the fact that the military doesn’t draw up warrants or hold trials for every person it kills is hardly a violation of due process.”
Utterly not the point, I’m afraid.
The point is under what circumstances ethics, liberty and the law permit the use of (legal) military methods or, alternatively, require the use of civilian judicial methods for addressing a perceived threat. This, obviously, is the difference between a) constitutionally limited government (and what we tell ourselves is a free society) and b) openly tyrannical government.
I mean, I recognize that, for the last 150 years or so, the one law that can be broken in the US essentially with impunity is the absolutely foundational one – i.e., the constitution – but I would have thought that recent moves by the Obama administration amounted to such an open thumbing of the state’s nose at the Constitution and the idea of legally restricted government that even most hardened devotees of the state would be concerned. Guess I was wrong.
I think both are the point. I certainly don’t disagree that “the point” you highlight is important. That’s precisely what I’ve been trying to get people’s attention back to, rather than non-sequitors.
As for the rest of this comment, I couldn’t possibly speak for the most hardened devotees of the state. I really don’t understand that mindset.
” As for the rest of this comment, I couldn’t possibly speak for the most hardened devotees of the state. I really don’t understand that mindset.”
Daniel, believe me I know better than most, the path to self-knowledge is difficult.
True, but even if it were it still doesn’t help you figure out the hardened devotees. My apologies for not being more helpful.
Due process being denied:
Victims retroactively defined as military targets:
Both excerpts from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html
An interesting article, danke.
I will point out that even the parts of that article on defining who is or who is not collateral damage do not match GG’s characterization of “any” human beings, nor even of all male ones.
” It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.”
Not a big difference ethically, if any. I must it is jolly sporting of the administration to consider evidence that those killed may have been innocent after the fact.
No, I think the difference is signficant. Greenwald’s characterization ” the definition of “militant” is any human being whose life is extinguished when an American missile or bomb detonates” suggests a bunch of oily Strangelovian yahoos. But in reality, they reduced the power and effectiveness of the drones to strike a much smaller area . And not any human being, just military age males. Abn they are not defined, they are presumed; a presumption that may be disproven. When you get these facts it all looks like a serious attempt by serious people facing a very difficult problem. Not a bunch of knuckle-dragging mealy-mouths as Greenwald seems to suggest.
Hmm, don’t think so. We’re not talking about choice of targets but rather how to classify people for public reporting purposes who were killed but who weren’t the pre-specified targets: it’s a “disputed method for counting civilian casualties”. In other words, it’s entirely about “managing down” the potential for public outrage or criticism from abroad.
You don’t think ‘any’ includes women and the stated policy does not? Or you don’t think ‘defined’ and ‘presumed’ have the same connotation?
I don’t think one has to agree with or like the policy to see that Greenwald’s characterization is tendentious and inaccurate.
Bad typing. I mean ‘have a different connotation’
I wasn’t talking about any differences between Greenwald’s characterization of the policy and the NY Times, I was responding to your point that “(w)hen you get these facts it all looks like a serious attempt by serious people facing a very difficult problem.”
The policy is not for choosing targets, it is for classifying non-targets that happen also to have been killed. BTW, to the extent that such a test, by relying on guilt by association, by sex or by geographic proximity, is effective to in containing public outrage, in either the US or target countries, what effect do you think that will have on the likelihood of strikes in the future that involve higher chances of civilian casualties?
Whether the policy is the best thing since sliced bread or the doings of the anti-christ is irrelevant to Greenwald’s unfair characterization, which is what my remarks were about.
I suspect, to answer your question, that more innocent persons unlucky enough to be very close to terrorists will be killed (and that more terrorists will be killed).
Do you think killing more terrorists will save more their would-be victims?
” Do you think killing more terrorists will save more their would-be victims?”
As long as those we kill are actually terrorists and not only terrorists in name but terrorists who were intending to attack us, yes.
Here’s a question for you:
Do you think killing more would-be murderers will save more of their would-be victims? How about executing more actual murderers who we were convinced would become repeat murderers?
Absolutely, yes to both questions. In fact if we kill everyone there will be no more murders.
The thing is david, I don’t think this definitively tells me what is the right policy.
Neither do I but really, Ken, although I always enjoy your give and take, I think perhaps you’re being a bit slippery here.
Clearly, your question to me (“Do you think killing more terrorists will save more their would-be victims?”) was not simply motivated by innocent curiosity – it was a rhetorical device to suggest that my position was going to result in more victims’ lives lost to terrorism and that therefore it was wrong.
@david nh: No actually it was motivated by an exactly analogous thought about YOUR question.
The slipperiness you detect is me trying carefully to NOT take a stand for or against Obama’s drone policy, but to stick to poking at some arguments or rhetoric I think …. sub-optimal.
Especially Greenwald’s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Robespierre_ex%C3%A9cutant_le_bourreau.jpg
1. I’ve come to the conclusion that there is no point in “debating” statists other than for the purpose of extracting from them a clear statement of their positions. That has been accomplished here today.
2. In practicing law, one often finds that judges might create artificial sub-categories for analysis of 13 different types of regulations, each with a different 17 or 11 part test which must be used to analyze their constitutionality. Woe to him that employs the wrong test to the wrong type of regulation. That is like an argument with DK. Keynes allegedly had dozens of different subtle, complex and unintelligible theories to be applied to dozens of different specific economic situations (which only DK understands). Crude Austrians are simply oblivious to those nuances. The same analysis applies to murdering foreigners.
3. Justin Raimondo says it all at antiwar.com:
Americans stupidly believe none of this applies to them: it’s all about detaining foreigners, and “terrorists,” and is therefore okay. No President would use the provisions of the law to target and detain American political dissidents – would he?
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/06/07/america-is-a-battlefield/
” I’ve come to the conclusion that there is no point in “debating” statists other than for the purpose of extracting from them a clear statement of their positions.”
I kind of like that part myself.
” Crude Austrians are simply oblivious to those nuances.”
That’s the remarkable thing about Greenwald, he’s a man of the left.
You flatter yourself by suggesting I’m pompous in the face of crude Austrians, when really I find that discussions with lots of Austrians go perfectly smoothly (and as far as I can tell, the feeling is relatively mutual). You need to appreciate the possibility that it might be you, Bob.
It’s not that you are pompous. You engage in a form of changing the subject to irrelevancies. If the market does not fail, Keynesianism is nonsense and announcing that the true Keynes would have split 38 hairs 57 different ways in 29 specific alleged situations (of which we are likely unfamiliar) is still irrelevant nonsense.
Bob says this ” I’ve come to the conclusion that there is no point in “debating” [people I call] statists …” and you think it might be him??? You’re shittin’ me, right?
I think the feeling may be that sometimes debating “some” can feel a bit like nailing jello to a wall or perhaps a re-enactment of the “dead parrot” sketch.
Don’t forget the argument clinic!
Which come to think of it often resembles FreeAdvice quite closely.
Very good. You’re winning the analogy wars today (at least in the “Monty Python” category).
Quite ironic…..
DK posts a drone propaganda video on his blog:
http://factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.com/2012/06/drones-are-significant-humanitarian.html
GG shreds the drone propaganda video on his blog:
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/08/media_drones_and_rank_propaganda/
http://factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.ca/2011/10/hitchens-on-al-awlaki.html
I used to be a conventional conservative (i.e., these days, that means neo-conish and, if not pro-war, at least not really anti-war). I used to mostly like Hitchens. I changed. This is what I thought about the article written by HItchens about Anwar Awlaki:
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2011/10/glenn-greenwald-radical-thinks-government-should-explain-why-it-killed-somebody.html#comment-25882
We will know just how humanitarian they really are when they start shooting them at Swedes in Sweden and Canadians in Ontario. Or hipster liberals on Cape Cod.
And when the Chinese start shooting them at Chinese in L.A., for which DK has established the most exquisite legal precedent.
We’re doomed.
I don’t post propaganda, [jerkface–edited by RPM].
“Yeah, well, the Jerk store called, and they ran out of you!” – George Constanza
Daniel, you posted a piece of war propaganda on your blog. The fact that you are emotional enough to use profanity should alert you that you’re not going in with your eyes open.
In what way is the video, which is advocacy for sure, and may or may not make sound arguments, propaganda? Is it false, or done in bad faith?
Murphy:
I was rereading Mises’ Theory of Money and Credit, and I came across this passage:
“In whatever way we care to picture to ourselves the increase in
the stock of money, whether as arising from increased production or
importation of the substance of which commodity money is made, or
through a new issue of fiat or credit money, the new money always
increases the stock of money at the disposal of certain individual
economic agents. An increase in the stock of money in a community
always means an increase in the money incomes of a number of
individuals; but it need not necessarily mean at the same time an
increase in the quantity of goods that are at the disposal of the
community, that is to say, it need not mean an increase in the
national dividend. An increase in the amount of fiat or credit
money is only to be regarded as an increase in the stock of goods at
the disposal of society if it permits the satisfaction of a demand for
money which would otherwise [not] have been satisfied by commodity
money instead, since the material for the commodity money would
then have had to be procured by the surrender of other goods in
exchange or produced at the cost of renouncing some other sort of
production.” – pg 138.
(I added the [not] because I think it’s a typo).
Did Mises say here that there is a possible justification for fiat money credit expansion? If people want more money that cannot be satisfied by commodity money?
The “[not]” is wrong MF. He is saying that we could view the expansion of fiat money as (relatively) adding to the stock of goods if, in the absence of that option, gold would have been withdrawn from dental fillings and arthritis treatments, to be used to make more gold coins. So in that scenario, the new fiat money effectively adds more gold teeth and arthritis treatments to the community, making it richer in real terms.
I would have to look at the full context to see if he is just making a technical point, or if he is totally endorsing this approach.
Thanks, I had the suspicion I was wrong.
I was thinking about your answer some more…
If I get you right, isn’t it then the case that Mises held that ALL fiat and credit expansion can be viewed as “adding to the nation’s wealth”, because without it, a loan or expenditure of gold money would otherwise require gold to be redirected away from other possible or present uses, but now doesn’t have to thanks to the fiat and credit expansion?
In other words, if people have a desire to hold more money, and that’s it, then fiat money inflation can be viewed as adding to the nation’s wealth, because otherwise a commodity money would, like you said, require gold to be taken out of alternative productive uses?
Right before that quoted passage above, he wrote this:
“An increase in the stock of money in a community always means an increase in the money incomes of a number of individuals; but it need not necessarily mean at the same time an increase in the quantity of goods that are at the disposal of the community, that is to say, it need not mean an increase in the national dividend.”
Here Mises is saying fiat inflation is not necessarily an increase goods.
So putting it all together, it looks like Mises is saying fiat and credit money inflation can two one of two things. It can either increase the supply of goods, or not increase the supply of goods. It should be viewed as increasing goods when people want to hold more money but would have otherwise been required to take gold out of their teeth to do so, and it should be viewed as not increasing goods when people don’t want to hold more money and, trivially, would have otherwise not taken gold out of their teeth anyway.
Right after the quoted passage, Mises wrote:
“If, on the other hand, the non-existence of the new issue of fiat or credit money would not have involved an increase in the quantity of commodity money, then the increase of money cannot be regarded as an increase of the income or wealth of society.”
Here, it looks like any fiat or credit money created that is beyond the increase in commodity money, cannot be regarded as an increase in wealth, because here the non-existence of additional fiat is accompanying a non-existence of additional commodity money.
So now putting this into the mix, maybe I’m wrong again, but if I didn’t know any better, it looks like Mises would regard fiat and credit money expansion as adding to the nation’s wealth, whenever, and to the extent that, an additional demand for money cannot be met out of what a commodity standard alone can offer.
For example, if the total supply of gold money is 1000 tons, and gold miners can’t produce any more right now, and there is a demand for gold holding totalling 1010 tons, then Mises would say that fiat and/or credit money inflation worth 10 tons of gold, would add to the nation’s wealth, because without it, people would have to delve into the supply of non-money gold like fillings, jewelry, and so on.
If this is the case, then was Mises a “free banker” a la Selgin and White? At least in 1921 when he wrote this?
Ignore my first paragraph about “ALL fiat and credit expansion”. I forgot I wrote it by the time I got to the latter part of the post.
Sorry, 1912.
I assume that anyone who supports the killing of US citizens or others on the basis of executive order must clearly be in favor of the death penalty in the civilian judicial system. I mean if it’s OK to kill on the President’s say so and we’re sure he only gets the guilty guys, then clearly, with all the checks, balances and protections within the justice system, there can’t be any concern with the death penalty. Right?
It doesn’t seem like a good inference to me. One can support shooting Breivik as he aims his rifle at a 12 year old without wanting to execute him later when he is captured and no longer a threat.
Yes, you’re right. So Presidential-sanctioned executions are more analogous to the preventative imposition of either death penalties or life imprisonment? In other words, measures aimed at the prevention of what we expect they might do, not what they have done?
My example cited a man actively pursuing a murderous course, who could not have been feasibly restrained by gentler, slower methods. That doesn’t seem a good analogy for any judicial punishment of a person in custody.
My point really is just how bad your inference was.
🙂
Maybe but of the many things that bother me about this process is the following:
a) One of the strongest, and I would suggest most widely accepted, arguments put forward by opponents of the death penalty is that the justice system is highly fallible notwithstanding the presence of many supposed protections.
b) In the case of the presidential drone thing, none of these protections exists, apart from, in effect, the prosecutors promising to get out the sharp pencils and be really fair and stuff. And most people seem to be unconcerned (I am not placing you in that category). I find this remarkable.
Oh, I don’t disagree with any of that.
🙂
I do though think there are important distinctions. The main one being that you can make a pretty good case that the only feasible way to stop known terrorists is to kill them, or that we’re at war. So you can logically support ‘targeted killing’ in inaccessible places as a matter of exigency.
Ken B. wrote:
“Oh, I don’t disagree with any of that.”
Yes you do. (That will be $5 please.)
What pasrt do I disagree with Bob?
To head you off at the pass:
“One of the strongest, and I would suggest most widely accepted, arguments put forward by opponents of the death penalty is that the justice system is highly fallible notwithstanding the presence of many supposed protections” I agree.
“In the case of the presidential drone thing, none of these protections exists, apart from, in effect, the prosecutors promising to get out the sharp pencils and be really fair and stuff.”
I agree.
“And most people seem to be unconcerned (I am not placing you in that category).” OK, I am uncertain about the firsty part, but I don’t actively disagree, I just don’t know. I trust him about the bracketed part.
“I find this remarkable.”
Yup, trsut him again.
So that leaves ….?
It leaves crickets apparently.
From Glenn Greenwald:
“The House is holding a hearing today to investigate whether the Obama administration provided classified information about the bin Laden raid to Hollywood filmmakers to enable them to produce a pre-election hagiographic account that glorifies the President; here’s what Jeremy Scahill reports about that hearing:
*House Intel Chair Rogers says that Bin Laden film’s makers were allowed by the Obama Admin. to attend classified hearings.*
*The parties permitted access to classified intel include: House Intel Cmte., Senate Intel Cmte., Hollywood filmmakers.*
“Threatening whistleblowers with decades in prison for “espionage” — while shuffling classified information to Hollywood producers to enable production of an Election Year propaganda film (about a covert action you insist to courts cannot be the subject of disclosure) — is corruption quite extreme.”
Indeed.
WHERE ARE THE OTHER LIBERALS??!?!? Is Glenn the only one with the guts to even talk about this?
WHERE ARE THE OTHER LIBERALS??!?!?
Just wait until President Romney picks up where President Obama leaves off. Then the anti-war left will wake up. Greenwald will be their hero again, instead of the annoying whiner that he is now.
If Romney wins, Glenn should troll the “anti-war” left by writing like a neocon, and then watching them point out his inconsistencies.
That would be double take epic-licious.
“Then the anti-war left…”
The anti-war left….what is that? Like an anti-war neocon?
I think they’re like gnomes that sneak in the middle of the night and reallocate the economy’s resources.
The Obama administration also undertook extraordinary efforts to prevent courts in Britain from investigating claims of torture by Binyam Mohamed, a British resident who was incarcerated at Guantanamo – and mercilessly tortured – for six years without charge.
A British High Court ruled that Mohamed’s lawyers were entitled to obtain the documents from British intelligence agencies that documented conversations with the CIA about what they were doing to him.
But just as the British High Court was to announce its ruling, and release the CIA account of how they were torturing him, the British government intervened.
Specifically, the British government said that the Obama administration had issued a threat: If the British High Court disclosed the facts of Mohamed’s torture, U.S. intelligence agencies would no longer pass on to Britain any information about terrorist plots aimed at British citizens.
The judges of the British High Court issued, in part, the following response:
We did not consider that a democracy governed by the rule of law would expect a court in another democracy to suppress a summary of the evidence contained in reports by its own officials or officials of another State where the evidence was relevant to allegations of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, politically embarrassing though it might be.
Eventually the British High Court caved and complied with the threats from the Obama administration as they did not want to place the British people at increased risk that would accompany the U.S. sanctions and refusal to alert them to terrorist activity.
Or in Kuehn’s world, due process was once again followed, to the tee!
The Obama administration’s expansion of “state secrets” above and beyond even what Bush had done, prompted the following post on the liberal Talking Points Memo website:
Does the Obama administration’s behavior represent a continuation of the Bushies’ obsession with putting secrecy and executive power above basic constitutional rights? Is it a sweeping power grab by the executive branch, that sets a broad and dangerous precedent for future cases by asserting that the government has the right to get lawsuits dismissed merely by claiming that state secrets are at stake, without giving judges any discretion whatsoever?
In a word, yes.
In January 2010 it was revealed that Obama has claimed the right to have American citizens assassinated if he thought that they were terrorists, even if those citizens were far from any actual battlefield and had never been charged with any crime.
On April 7, 2010, the New York Times confirmed that the Obama administration has authorized the targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen.
Awlaki’s father brought a lawsuit again the Obama administration in a U.S. federal court, arguing that the planned assassination of his son was unconstitutional and asking the court to order it stopped.
In response, the Obama administration raised the state secret privilege, proclaiming that no court is even permitted to hear the case. In other words, not only does the president have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions on who will be killed and why he wants them dead are state secrets that no court may review or even know about.
Or in High Priest Kuehn speak, “they get due process, it’s just a different kind. You know, the one that looks exactly like no due process.”